(Prayer: Declare that the imposition of any other conditions by the Respondents on the petitioner other than the conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 85 / 2004 CU dated 31.8.2004 while finalising the 32 numbers of bills of entries as mentioned in the schedule in the writ petition in so far as the petitioner company pertaining to import of Aluminium Alloy Ingots, is illegal, arbitrary and null and void.

WP No. 27921 of 2022: Declaring the entire proceedings conducted / carried out by the Respondents after provisionally assessed the 32 numbers of bills of entries as mentioned in the schedule in the writ petition as null and void as the same having been conducted by the Respondents in violation of principles of natural justice and by depriving the right of appeal and other legal remedies to the petitioner and remit back the matter to the Respondents for proper final assessment in accordance with law and further direct the Respondents to finally assess the aforesaid bills of entries upon affording sufficient opportunities to the petitioner of being heard.

WP No. 27933 of 2022: Declaring that the invocation of Bank Guarantees No. 0999914BG0001474 dated 26.11.14 and 0999914BG0001587 dated 18.12.14 for the total sum of Rs.81,57,000 is illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the Respondents to remit back the aforesaid amount to the bank guarantor state bank of India AG branch chennai 8 for its due credit into the aforesaid bank Guarantees which shall be held as security by the Respondents until the finalisation of provisional assessment of 32 numbers of bills of entries mentioned in the schedule in the writ petition or in the alternative refund the total sum of Rs.81,57,0000/- enchased as Bank Guarantee to the petitioner

WP No. 27924 of 2022: Directing the Respondents not to deny the benefit of 100 percent exemption from basic customs duty to the petitioner by assessing at zero duty / nil rate of duty under the Customs Notification No. 85 / 2004 CU dated 31.8.2004 to the petitioner for the 32 numbers of bills of entries mentioned in the schedule in the writ petitioner (which pertains to petitioners import of Aluminium Alloy ingots) provisionally assessed on the strength of petitioners compliance of conditions prescribed in the said notification when the same are assessed finally and further direct the Respondents not to apply any other conditions other than the conditions prescribed in the aforesaid notification, which are alien to the aforesaid Notification and thus render justice.)

Common Order:

1. These writ petitions arise out of the very same cause of action. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inordinate delay on the part of the respondents to make a final assessment with regard to imports made by the petitioner, which are covered under 32 bills of entries disclosed in these writ petitions, despite the fact that the petitioner was granted provisional release of the imported goods as per the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act as early as in the year 2014 itself. The petitioner had also furnished bank guarantees based on the directions of the respondents for the grant of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they have been unnecessarily keeping the bank guarantees alive even after the lapse of more than 10 years from the date on which the order of provisional release was granted by the respondents under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

3. Since the respective prayers sought in these writ petitions arise out of the very same cause of action, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

4. The petitioner has filed supporting documents along with these writ petitions in support of their contention that due to inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in making their final assessment, any levy of customs duty/penalty by the respondents in the proposed assessment order will be arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and contrary to various decisions rendered by the Constitutional Courts.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in the said counter affidavit, they have not dealt with the petitioner’s contention of inordinate delay as raised by them in their affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions. However, they have stated that the matter may be remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to various documents filed by them along with these writ petitions, and would submit that although bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner for obtaining provisional release of the imported goods as early as in the year 2014 itself, the respondents arbitrarily had encashed one bank guarantee in the year 2022 without putting the petitioner on notice, and there is a every likelihood that the remaining bank guarantees may also be encashed by the respondents, despite the petitioner not being liable for payment of any further customs duty/penalty due to the respondents’ inordinate delay in passing the final assessment order.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also relied upon decisions rendered by the Delhi High Court and Jharkhand High Court, and would submit that in case of inordinate delay by the Customs Department in making the final assessment, the said delay cannot be condoned as held in those decisions.

8. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, and would submit that the respondents are prepared to pass final assessment orders by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. He also drew the attention of this Court to certain communications sent by the petitioner to the respondents, and the last such communication was in the year 2022 prior to the filing of these writ petitions, and would point out that even in those communications, the petitioner had infact requested the respondents to pass final assessment orders. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner will not be prejudiced if the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

9. Eventhough the petitioner has been able to establish before this Court that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in passing the final assessment order, despite granting of provisional release as early as in the year 2014 itself, there are disputed questions involved with regard to the communications exchanged between the parties relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned standing counsel for the respondents. This Court, instead of deciding the matter by itself on the merits of the petitioner’s contention with regard to inordinate delay, deems it fit to direct the respondents to pass the final assessment order, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

10. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court has also not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s contentions. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also agreed for remanding the matter back to the respondents for passing of the final assessment order. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in the communications exchanged between the parties, there is any explanation given by the respondents for the inordinate delay in passing of the final assessment order. Since the petitioner in the year 2022 itself, just prior to the filing of these writ petitions, had requested the respondents to pass the final assessment order, this Court is not inclined to grant a positive relief as prayed for by the petitioner in these writ petitions, but, instead, deems it fit to remand the matter back to the respondents for passing of the final assessment order after giving due consideration to all the contentions that have been raised in these writ petitions before the respondents, which includes the contention of inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in passing the final assessment order. This Court is of the considered view that if the final assessment is made by the respondents within the time limit fixed by this Court, namely, six weeks, the petitioner will not be prejudiced, as the matter can also be listed again before this Court for reporting compliance.

11. Since the subject imports covered under 32 bills of entries are of the year 2014, and since the petitioner had obtained provisional release of the goods in the year 2014 itself, the question of directing the petitioner to furnish further documents apart from the documents already furnished by the petitioner before the Customs Department for obtaining provisional release of the goods, does not arise. Therefore, it is made clear that the respondents shall not direct the petitioner to furnish any further documents, and only based on the documents available with the Customs Department, they will have to pass the final assessment order.

12. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are disposed by issuing the following directions:

(a) The second respondent is directed to pass the final assessment order covered under 32 bills of entries, which are the subject matter of these writ petitions, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in these writ petitions including the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the respondents to pass the final assessment order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by adhering to the principles of natural justice, as well as by adhering to the circulars issued by CBFC, which includes the grant of personal hearings to the petitioner.

(b) The bank guarantees, which were furnished by the petitioner for obtaining provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, which have not been encashed by the respondents (Customs Department), shall not be encashed by them, and the encashment depends upon the outcome of the final assessment order to be passed by the second respondent pursuant to this order of this Court today.

(c) The second respondent is directed to pass final orders only based on the documents that were already produced by the petitioner at the time of granting provisional of release of the goods, and the said authority shall not direct the petitioner to produce any further documents to decide the matter.

No Costs. Connected WMPs are closed. Post these matters for reporting compliance on 23.02.2026.